Can richer teams buy advantage?
Discussion question | This is for ages 10 to 13.
If some teams can afford better sports technology for their athletes, are the Olympics and Paralympics still fair?
The Winter Olympics and Paralympics are also known as the Winter Games. Some countries or sports groups can give their athletes more funding to spend on the latest sports technology. Is this fair?
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think [your opinion] so therefore the Winter Games [are/are not] fair because [the reason for your opinion].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (99)
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not completely fair because some countries can spend more money on sports technology. This includes faster equipment, better training facilities, and more experts to help athletes improve tiny details that can make a big difference in races. When winning can depend on milliseconds, these small advantages matter a lot.
According to the official Olympic website, technology plays an important role in modern sport, but all equipment must follow the rules set by the organisers. Even so, having more money can help teams use the best version of what is allowed.
However, I don’t think money automatically wins medals. Athletes still have to train for many years, stay mentally strong, and perform under huge pressure. This shows that the Winter Games are partly fair, but not equal, because while the rules are the same for everyone, the support behind the athletes is very different.
Do you think the Games should limit technology to make them fairer for everyone?
I think so because that way the games will be fairer for everyone to participate. Thank you.
Hello, resplendent_blueberry, I actually liked your comment when I read it, and strongly agreed to your opinion, but I think it depends on who will decide for example, the president of some country, will obviously agree to buy the best technology ever to make their team win, but if there's judges in each country to make sure that every country has the same technology and same techniques. Like this competition, yes it's online, but there are judges all around the competition, for example its against the rules to use ai, so if you use ai you'll get caught, and if you talk too much about politics, your comment won't be approved, and so on.
To wrap this all up, I agree with your idea, but there's one slight change that I want to say, that if there were judges, that are strict and trustworthy, they would make the games even more fair, not partly, but still your comment was amazing.
Bye resplendent_blueberry and topical talkers!👋
I don't think the winter games should limit technology because it is a competition and everyone should do what is in their power to win, but I know some people will say limiting technology is fair on those who are not opportuned to have the technological devices or machines, but limiting it is also unfair to those who have the machines or devices, because the devices are only used for training and not for cheating, so if they have it, why not use it. And I believe that the organisers of the Winter olympic games advice athletes to train, so limiting the use of technology during training is unfair to those that have the technological device because using it is apart of training.
I agree because... Money is an important factor because certain sports athletes can get better equipment than others. I think there should be a financial spending limit, so both poorer and richer athletes have the same opportunities.
Can you explain more on your suggestion of a financial spending limit?
Can you explain more on your suggestion of a financial spending limit?
I agree because... you can’t go to a shop and spend lots of money 💰
I think the richer team are the one that are going to be the winter game are that games will be fairer for everyone to participate. THANK YOU....
Yes they should limit technology in games if the use of technology will make the game unfair for others also they should limit the use of technology if it would remove what makes a game fun.
I think it’s unfair, so therefore the Winter Games are not fully fair yet. This is because athletes from richer countries can afford better sports technology. Advanced technology gives them huge advantages in training, safety and even recovery tools. For less wealthy teams who cannot afford these things, it is a big disadvantage. Imagine you are from a team with less money and you lose against someone just because they had better sports technology. That would make you feel very upset. In my opinion, the Winter Games should make sure everyone can use the same technology or ban it until it is affordable for all.
I agree because athletes from richer countries would be able to afford better sport technology while athletes from other countries wouldn't be able to afford it and this will be very unfair.
While I partly agree with what you're saying, I think that as long as the principle of the sport/game doesn't change there is advantage for both sides. However, touching on the fact that some teams have more money to spend on better facilities training equipment and sports tech it cannot compete with skill. You can have the best technology in any field but it doesn't always mean you are better than your opponent.
I think they can because they can buy better shoes for running and at home you can do exercises and if you have an ice bath or something you can relax you body before the winter games
I agree because if you relax your body be for the race you can run faster because you have relaxed and you can get a medal for getting first place but if you get second place you still become a winner though so you are not a loser for getting second place ok
From England near the beach.i hope you liked my comment ok
I think that any variable that would give any advantage to a certain team should be considered cheating. not all countries have the money to waste on sports technology, that could have been used to improve the country. therefore, the winter games aren't fair because some countries in south africa have naturally born athletes that surpass any other human being but fall behind because the lack of technologies.
the olymipic games is already tech doping (banning techs that give an unfair advantage and ruins the spirit of the game) like the ban of wearing polyurethane or neoprene in swimming compitition as it makes the sport more about engineering than skills and another one could be the super shoes that are banned in racing as it gives extra comfort.
secret is in discipline not cash.
I agree
Can you say why you agree with them, gregarious_pomogranate? At Topical Talk, we love to see students explain why they think something.
I agree because if they are using a thing that makes them better then that will be unfair for the poorer countries and so that they can play properly without cheating. I think they should ban them like you said. I just agree with everything you say 😃😃
Hello 👋 there are big problems in the world 🌍 like waste people are throwing out items which go in the sea and climate change is a bad thing in the world it is horrible animals and there habitats are dying and wild fires are killing trees 🌳 so it is killing people by getting rid of tees
I think that the winter games are not fair because some country’s have more money than others , and it’s not fair because if they’re a fast runner and they don’t have enough money to buy the special equipment ,as a slower runner could and it doesn’t show us the true strength of the slower runner to the faster one I think it should be provided if they needed it as it’s not fair because richer teams will always win
Thank you for your comment! Remember to try to break your submissions into shorter sentences or phrases: it's far easier to read these than one long block of text.
As I have said many times, I don’t agree with technology usage in sports, but either way, I think that richer athletes have a higher chance of winning as they can afford the extra help. That isn’t fair because some countries might be low on money due to financial problems or even construction in their country.
Ways we can solve this -
1. Ban all technology use in sports
2. If there is going to be technology use in sports anyway, there should at least be a budget if option 1 isnt suitable.
3. Restrict technology usage to only 2 devices allowed per person.
Bad things about it -
1. Technology shouldn’t be allowed as its cheating
2. It can help people who don’t need it
3. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Good things about it (even though I disagree)
1. It helps some people to struggle or maybe are disabled in a way that affects them
2. It could make some sports safer
3. People who have had less training or time to prepare will have a more even match
Technology shouldn’t be allowed at all, but a lot of people still use it, which I have a very strong opinion against, but I can’t be the dictator of everything and I don’t really get a say - when topical talk asked about young people having a say in the news, this links back to that.
Hello charming_television your perspective is very well thought out, but if the technology is used but used fairly and was available for everyone to use it would be completely fair. Some nations might not be as rich as others and the training technology could be more unfair but when the competitions or tournaments are there, the technology could be used by everyone.
I think this is not fair because :
UNEQUAL ACCESS: The major reason that people don't like it as it makes things very very unfair. Athletes from countries with a lot of money have a large advantage as because they have better equipments, training facilities, coaches and support staff that athletes from poorly developed countries can't get!!!!!.
DILUTES HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT: When technology becomes the decisive factor in winning, some argue it dilutes the role of natural athleticism, skill, and human effort, which goes against the core spirit of fair competition in the Olympics.
AGAINST OLYMPIC PRINCIPLES : THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) has said a concern that large disparities in resources can turn Games into an elitist event,which conflicts with their mission to make sports accessible globally.
So this is the reason for me to strongly disagree.
I agree because the money given to them is to improve their skills not to help them cheat ,it is not also an illegal act
I believe richer the team buy advantage meaning that if a country has a bigger amount of money than opponent country it can become unfair . Some equipment make faster during the Olympics and Paralympics it is better for everyone involve to have a fair play in the exercise. it is good for some equipment to be limited
I agree because... when the the other team has more money they can buy more equipment that can boast there performance while the other team that do not have enough money will not be able to upgrade there performance and end up losing all the time
so i think the best solution is the producers should make it more accessible to both the rich and poor
I also think that the richer buy an advantage which makes it not actually fair because not all country are rich and influential therefore oppressing the other country's who do not have enough resources to get the tech which makes the more influential country wining the reasons why the influential country wins is because they can spend their money on vast and the latest model of sport technology giving the country the best of opportunity to win
I also strongly believe that the country with the lowest resources have a higher opportunity of getting affected positively and here are my points
1. they are considered to be more physically fit than the influential country we should all remember that influence doesn't last forever
2. we should also consider the technology malfunctions in the middle of the game the country with less resources begins to have a higher opportunity of winning so it is good to train physically than to train artificially so YES I THINK THE GAME SHOULD LIMITE THE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE IT FAIR FOR EVERYONE
I think if some teams can afford better sports technology for their athletes for the Olympics and Paralympics it wouldn't be fair. So therefore the Winter Games are not fair because the Olympics and Paralympics wouldn't be able to play the winter games.
Thanks!
In my opinion any type of advantage should be considered a cheat code since many poor countries can't afford the same quality of equipment as the richer ones and that could lead to unfair victory. Although skill matters most, it is important to remember that equipment could be equiped with cheating technology. Thankfully there are some ground rules and equipment is strictly checked to make it as fair as possible.
Some unfair advantages include:
•better training( more advanced training centers)
• the use of technology that provides advantages
Some of these can have very small advantages but when it comes down to it that tiny bit of extra help could be the difference between a win and a loss
There are probably a lot of unnoticed talented potential players that just don't have the right equipment to push them to their absolute limit.
To conclude, technology should be limited as both teams should use the same technology to be able to provide a fair and just match for all.
I agree with you, phenomenal_fern, you state that even if an athlete has pure talent, they can still have an advantage if their team pays for more training and better equipment. At the Winter Olympics, many of the sports are not activities that can be won off of raw potential, but talent that needs to be nurtured and improved with the use of new technology - which can only be done with a lot of time and money. I can understand your view point and agree with your conclusion.
i think richer teams can buy advantage cause tech helps us to make sport more better. Like the VAR ( video assistant referee) makes football fair for people being fouled and the main referee did not see it, they can change decision if there was a mistake.
so i think richer teams can by more advantages and also makes games fair.
SO I ASK CAN POOR TEAMS ALSO HAVE ADVANTAGES ?
richer teams can buy advantage because they have the money to get all the developed materials needed and can get opportunity to win the game
they have developed mindset of winning the game, when they think of what to do and how to do it with thier devices , if they put it to practice by the grace of God they can win the game. thanks
Hello topical talkers in my own opinion I think that the fairness of the Olympics and Paralympics with sports technology is a big issue. Technology helps athletes do better and makes sports more open especially in the Paralympics where special equipment like artificial legs arms or wheelchairs allow people with disabilities to compete. But not all athletes can get the same tools. Richer countries can buy advanced shoes suits or equipment giving them an advantage over poorer nations. Some people call this cheating because it mixes talent with technology. I think technology should be allowed but there should be rules and support so competitions stay fair.
No! I think it's unfair because other countries give their athletes more funding makes the game less fair and they team with less funding loose.
I think it is not completely fair because, richer countries can afford better sports technology and training which gives their athlete an advantage. This is especially true in the winter games and Paralympics where equipment is very important. However, there are rules and classifications to reduce unfair advantages. so, while it is not equal, the competition is still fair overall.
according to the olympic website, i think that the developed and richer team can actually win the competition they are rich team so they can easily access the materials the need to win buy comfortable shoes other things that will help the win
I think richer teams have an unfair advantage in the use of technology. Because there are many teams that do not have enough money to buy those technologies. The use of technology in sports discourages hardwork and makes many people to lack talent.
In fact, the use of technology in sports makes it boring and less captivating. Medals and trophies are used to symbolize hardwork, consistency and efficiency. But if technology is used to enhance the athlete it will be very wrong, the athlete need to go through years of training in order to achieve that goal. In conclusion I think the use of technology in sport should be reduced.
I think that the the winter Olympics and Paralympics won't be fair if some teams have more funding than the others. Because some teams would benefit greatly from it than the others because they can afford sport technology others can't afford to get .
Yes, richer teams can buy an advantage, because the winter games are not really fair and many people have spent there money on sport technology. These include faster equipment, and more help to make athletes improve details that can make a big difference in races. When winning can take seconds, those advantage matter a lot.
According to the official Olympic website technology, technology helps in modern sport, but all the equipment must follow the rules set by the organizers. Having money can help teams use the best version.
I don`t think money automatically wins medals. The winter games are partly fair, but not equal, because the support behind the athletes are very different.
Do you think Games should improve technology to make them more fair for everyone?
HI i am willing crab
and i want to talk about the problem above⬆
to me its not fair because the other team are well equipped while the others are not meaning that the equipped team has more chances of winning
I think they can because they spend money on sports equipment faster equipment for better training before the competition. in athletes it involves more strength training.
I think its unfair, so therefore the winter games are not fair because the richer teams can be able to afford all advanced technology and they can be used in training which can enable them to win without any troubles, it can also aid in the help of treatment incase of any accidents, while those teams with lesser wealthy equipment can't be able to train as much as the richer team and might lose to them, thank you.
In my own belief, I think that richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the winter games are not fair and will not be fair because many countries can afford to spend more money just so that they can buy advantages and win the winter games.
I personally think that it is a form of cheating and it will make other contestants not to have a fair game. And also, in that kind of game, the host should bring enough equipment so that people will not make it an excuse to start spending money on sport technology.
Also, I would want to ask if other people bringing other forms of technology, instead of using the equipment brought for them is fair enough.
Hello topical talkers, hope you are doing great. I think it’s pretty unfair if teams can just spend loads of money to get an advantage. The Olympics and other big competitions are supposed to be about who is the fastest or strongest because of their hard work and practice, not who has the biggest budget.
If one team has access to the best technology and fancy equipment that other countries can't afford, it doesn't really feel like a level playing field. It makes it feel more like a competition between engineers and bank accounts rather than the actual athletes. I reckon there should be stricter rules so that everyone has to use similar gear, that way we can see who actually has the most talent.
I think the Olympic games are still fair even when teams cannot afford good sport technology. Let us take for example a treadmill, this is a commonly used equipment in the the sport industry, because it really helps with our speed and cardio, but before all this we had early morning jogging, this is a very great exercise to do in morning before you start your day, this activity help a lot because many people who wanted to lose weight engaged in this activity and it actually made a difference in their lives, their rotund bodies went away and they began to see their new selves. This morning jogging also builds our immune system and because of this an individual may hardly get sick on or before a game which makes them strong out and in the field. An Athletes dose not need high end technology to become the best he/she has everything that they need around them.
You raise a good point, unassuming_pear -- that keeping physically fit doesn't require much technology. But at the elite level, some technology can give a real advantage. If that advantage does not reflect physical fitness but instead reflects that more money was spent, is that still fair?
I think they are being fair and unfair:
They are fair because they never said that the other team should not buy/get their own equipment.
AND
they are being unfair to the other team, how? Let say we have TEAM A and TEAM B, TEAM A has well equipped materials and TEAM B does not have, TEAM A would be the winning team because they have well equipped sports technology that would help them get more advance in games. But to members of TEAM B it will be like a favoritism to TEAM A and for that there would be no peace.
SO THEREFORE I STRONGLY DISAGREE TO THIS BECAUSE Applying this to law, no one is above the law every one is equal before the law and so why shouldn't TEAM B be able to access the same equipment as TEAM A.
it's not like it was decided that only one team should have the sports technology but lets take it like TEAM B couldn't afford it, I feel like there should be an assurance that the sport technology would be provided for every single person participating in that games, if not it should be banned, so as to gain peace and harmony.
I yes I think richer teams could have a lot of advantage because they have enough money to buy the required equipment that can help them to win in different competitions and as we all know that the world today is developing faster than we can imagine
so the richer team could buy high and expensive facilities that could help them in win the competition thanks for reading and this
is my point on this thanks
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not completely fair because some countries don't have enough income (money) to purchase good and quality equipment for the games might end up losing the competition which is not fair while some countries spend more money on sports technology which means they can afford to have faster equipment, quality training facility, and experts to help improve skills for huge and tough sport activities.
Those countries who don't spend money at all on sports technology and can't afford to have; good quality equipment, quality training facility and don't have experts to help improve skills for sports might end up losing.
However, my opinion is that those in charge of should supply facilities to those countries who have less.
I agree that if teams can afford better sports technology, then winter games are completely unfair.
For me these events are meant to celebrate human skills, hardwork, dedication, But money plays a major role in sports. These events are highly influenced by money and access to advanced tech, which gives the richer team a edge. I personally views how some richer countries wins most olympic medals. In recent events, The top 10 richest countries won over half of the medals, while poorer countries won few or none. This shows that money affects result not just the talents. The main reason making this events more unfair is tech can quietly change the rules of effort(the fairness that everybody should take more to succeed). For example two atheletes with equal talent, same amount of training, but the one with better tech can save energy, recover quick and reduce making mistakes. This shows us tech not just improve performance-it reduces the effort needed to succeed, it just shifts sports into a competition of equipments rather than human limits and skills.
I think advanced suits, lighter equipments and expensive prosthetics will give atheletes an edge which others may can't afford. As a result, I feel atheletes from poor countries may compete fairly following rules, but not fairly in reality. In winter games to uphold fairness , success should depend on skills, determination, hardwork, not how much money a country can spend
I like your comment, especially how you support your points by referring to past medal statistics and with some good comparisons. This is essential to build an argument. Good job!
Let's take your analysis even further, how about expand on it by bringing in more real world statistics. For example, when did wealthier countries begin to dominate winter sports, and how does this correspond to improvements in sports technology over time? Any case studies where technology acted as a game-changer?
Also, don’t forget to define what fairness means to you. Your definition will be the backbone for the rest of your argument and help the readers to understand the standards you are imposing. Carry on!
1. For me Fairness in sports is, the atheletes should rely on their skills, dedication, hardwork and determination for their success. As a sportsmen I see this 4 key things that a athelete must have. They should not succeed with financial resource or advanced technology. When technology or money dominates, then fairness could only seen in paper, not in reality.
2. For me , I think that wealthier countries began to dominate winter sports in 1990's onwards, because I feel that this period is the time where the sports became popular, most importantly winter games, also there was a rapid improvement in sports technology and sports science. Like the introduction of high tech suits, advanced prosthetics, and data based training methods, these are some things gave a clear advantage to richer nations, in my view this was a period where countries started cold war that, who is gonna win more medals in the Winter games.
3. There are several scenario that technology acted as a game changer, I witnessed it in an olympic in late 2010's, U.S's skating team used a top brand's advanced suit in which they won around 4-5 gold medals.
Atheletes from poor countries may follow rules properly but they still compete with a disadvantage. If we need to uphold fairness means success should be determined by human skills/ability and hardwork, not by having access to advanced, expensive technology.
Can richer teams buy advantage? Actually the answer is “no and yes at the same time” In fact, the rich can buy many things, such as education more time (someone helps them or faster), better health and physical care, opportunities and relationships, and these are real features, and also make a difference in our lives, because thanks to education, we can remain something better in the future, and in relationships, a very rare opportunity can come to anyone, but it comes easily because of relationships and others, and this is the reason I said about it "yes", but in other cases, money can't do anything like, for example, intelligence and real diligence, because this is made, it does not buy, values and conscience, because this is a need that God gave us to walk in the right path, and also if you are rich and you don't have a talent, you will not know how to buy it, because this is impossible, and others, the important thing is that you do not depend on your money because the money isn’t every thing and that’s why I said “no”
That was everything bye bye
Can you draw out the two most important points in this comments, to make them clear even for the youngest readers?
Some people think that money is everything, but those who do not know that this money is considered and nothing but it is important, I mean, for example, if someone is tired and he is rich, he will never know how to be well because this is a destiny and a need that has nothing to do with money, and this is the first point and the second point that money is important, and I admit, but there are needs and needs in things that remain from God that have nothing to do with money and there are needs such as education and travel, for example, in these have a relishing with the money
I disagree because yes if SOME teams can afford it others might not be able to. Other countries might be struggling with money and can't pay for sports technology where richer athletes have more money for an advantage and it is not fair they cant control their currency and pay. Some sports technology is necessary (goggles,chalk on hands for gymnasts) and others are 100% needed (footballs and basketballs) to the point where you can't do the sport without them.
i don`t think that money should automatically win medals but it seems that this is the case. 99% of the time the better the technology the more expensive it is, so that leads to why they should lower the prices if they decide to keep technology at least make all of the prices equal and the same quality throughout.
Unfortunately there always has and always will be a story of those that have and those that don`t.I think it would be much fairer if all countries put all funding into one pot and the money is shared out between competing countries . For example if all sport is about the athlete then all the equipment should be the same, same hockey sticks, same bob sleigh. The individual can concern themselves with which trainers or running shoes they like or suit their feet.
Thank you for reading my comment and I hope people put this into action soon, if you have any questions please let me know in the comments.
Bye topical talkers
Interesting thoughts - can you give some other examples of where "money wins medals"?
Hi I'm easygoing_newspaper and I think this question about the winter games is really important because money can quietly change everything . When richer teams can afford high-tech skis advance bodysuits and expensive training equipment , their athletes start the competition with an advantage that has nothing to do with talent .Athletes from different countries with fewer resources might be just as skilled but they do not get the same opportunities to train or use the best gear. That make the games feel less fair ,because the Olympics and Paralympics are suppose to be about determination and teamwork not about which team has a bigger budget .Technology will always be a part of sport but it should not be the deciding factor , so finding ways to support less wealthy teams or limit extreme equipment could help keep the competition focused on the athletes themselves . That is why I think richer teams buy themselves a upper hand so therefore it is not completely fair.
I think the winter games are not completely fair, so therefore the winter games does not give an equal chance of winning to all the teams because athletes from maybe a cold but wealthy country have a better advantage as they might have ice rinks,snow or just good funded systems that can allow people to get more experiences for their races and help them get used to this routine, meanwhile other countries that are quite warmer and don't have that much wealth and struggle to get access for needed sportswear, gear or even coaches. This means success is not influenced by talent but where your born and how much your country can afford. While the games celebrates everyone's unique skill, they don't always provide a playing field for everyone
By calm_harmonica
I think that depending on where does that money come from, so therefore the Winter games are not entirely fair because wealthier nations can afford and buy cutting-edge sports stuff, giving the athletes an advantage, but, in the other hand, I think that if they can improve their equipment it´s because they´ve worked and deserved it. To conclude, I want to say that I´m always at the side of those who really have talent and dedication, this is crucial in sports.
Can you explain what you mean by "where the money comes from"?
I think not because even though they’re richer than others it does not mean that they have the best technology for sports also for technology safe a reason for a marathon you could use a stopwatch to see how good you are or you could time yourself. This is not true and if other teams are using it, they probably do not have a advantage technology should be used for sports on special occasions unless the coaches decide that somebody needs to this is my opinion. I hope you guys enjoyed it.
Can you explain what you mean by "advantage technology should be used to sports on special occasions"?
I think richer teams could have advantage as they have access to better equipment like databases using this information which can see how likely athletes are to getting injuries. Also rich clubs have better equipment which can prove an advantage. Even though you still have to follow procedures on technology - which I learned from the live lesson rich countries have access to the best equipment which means the latest technology. I think even though we have rules to make it fair rich teams can slightly twist the rules to have the best chance of winning. Athletes still need to be very good to take part in the Olympics so countries who are poor but good in a sport may not feel the bite even without technology so I have come to an overall conclusion the winter games are fair.
I think that if some teams can afford much better sports technology, then Winter Games are not
completely fair, because success can depend on money such as talent and hard work. Athletes from wealthier countries often have access to advanced equipment , data analysis and training tools that give them an advantage before the competition even begins. This is especially important in the Paralympics, where technology such as prosthetics or adaptive equipment can strongly affect performance.
However, people might disagree because they believe technology is part of progress in sport and that all athletes are competing under the same rules. They might argue that the Olympics and Paralympics have always involved differences in resources and that dedication, skill and training still matter more than equipment alone.
I disagree with this because even if rules are the same, not all athletes start with the same opportunities. When technology gives some competitors a clear advantage, the results may reflect wealth rather than true ability, which goes against the idea of fair competition.
I think that poorer countries that participate would have a disadvantage. So there for the Winter Games are unfair.
I believe that the Olympics and Paralympics are a way to show your own skill and the hard work that went into getting it there. If a participant is from a richer country and that said country provided them with better equipment, facilities or trainers they would have a larger advantage than a participant who trains by them selves.
I think by having richer teams compete with other teams in the Olympics is a bit unfair. As they can buy better technology items,now yes it does have to follow certain rules,but,I still think there's an advantage. I think there should be a budget each team gets to spend on their technology,and they can't use money from outside that budget,it should also be a budget that's affordable for all teams,so that way it's fair,as everyone gets a fair chance.
Yes richer teams can buy advantages that help them compete better so they get better rankings or can get better when using the advantages that they bought so they can get more better results.
No it’s not fair because some would get higher in rankings using advantages so the others who didn’t buy advantages or bought worser ones will not get a good ranking. so i think this shouldn’t be fair so they shouldn’t use advantages/technology to be better at the olympics or paralympics bye 👋 thanks for reading this.
It depends if the other counties are working hard because if they are all working hard and making money it is not fair if some have more money than others. Like Africa for example, their team works really hard but if they are poor then they won't have as good equipment.
Have you made any assumptions about Africa here? Africa is a continent, so there are lots of different countries within in - some of these will have excellent sporting facilities and funding. Can you do some research about some of them?
I believe yes because for example ronaldo can finance training equipment to help him get better however its bad because some of it is unfair to the others
I think that teams with more money get a better advantage in sports like a football can buy more things like for example man united they obviously have more money than Ramsgate so they can buy sports shoes that can make an advantage for them that is obviously amazing for them so it is not fair for players in other teams and its better for fans to watch because its not about the money its about skill not money so it makes the game nicer relying on skill not money. so people can buy less and train more
I think that richer teams can buy more equipment to help them so that leads them to the winter games are completely not fair at all! So even if the richer teams win i think we should still congratulate the teams with less money. What is the point of competeing against teams who cheat.
I think the winter games are not fair because if a team has more than others then they can get better equipment, better places to practice, better chances to win and so that is what makes it unfair.
I think that rich teams finance should be equivalent to teams and national whose finance is in poverty and should have the same options in competitions.
I think that some teams can have an advantage just because of their money and that isn`t fair for the poorer side of the sports teams and also if you train with them special sports technology then you start to rely on the sports tech and then if your in a race or a competition that doesn`t allow sports technology you will be unable to do as well as you could if you didn't use or train with the tech . If you use them but another team doesn`t then you just automatically have a massive head start. If you have more money then that's fair because it`s your teams money but use that money for something else not just to get a head start.
I feel that teams that have the most people supporting them and therefore have an unfair advantage because they are able to buy more sport technology so when in football matches and its millimeters that decide if its offside or not and if a ball in golf is in the fairway or rough these sport technology really matter.
With the Paralympics and the Olympics sport tech shouldn't be aloud to be in matches as that could be the millimeter that helps them to win the tournament.
I think teams with more money have an advantage because therefore they have access to more advanced training facilities and better equipment but it does not always depend on the technology, athletes still have to train, some longer than others to win awards
I think that money should be put into a big digital pot and be shared an equal amount across all countries making fair chances and giving every athlete the same chance and countries with more money should contribute more to this pot. Better equipment does now always mean better skill, it still depends on the training the discipline and the work put into training
I strongly agree with resplendent_blueberry's post but I think sometimes it depends on the coaching
I think it makes it unfair for the other athletes because they may train more but they will lose because other teams are given advantages like running shoes but other are having normal shoes.
I disagree because if someone has more money then its not fair for others. Its because someone might have better equipment then another so its not fair because everyone should have the chance to win. They should all have the same equipment because if someone has better, upgraded items, we would not have an fair competition.
I think that if richer teams buy advantage then it might not be fair for the other teems therefore the winter games are not fair because buying a advantage with your money might not be what the other team can afford but things that can help you train would be more fair as it doesn't affect the game itself.
I think that they are allowed to buy the technology, so therefore the winter games are not fair because it makes an unfair advantage. So yes they buy can the technology but it is unfair to the opposing team, for example the Paralympics if someone can afford a more advanced prosthetic leg it makes it unfair to someone who can't get access to one as good.
On one side, if richer teams can buy better equipment then they should because they want to win or at least do well so why wouldn't they try to get the best equipment and coaches. However, it can be unfair on the teams with less money as they could be just as skilled but can not afford better equipment.
i disagree because people who really need to win wont be able to because people will be using awesome equipment and others will not be able to because they do not have as great equipment. it makes The Winter Games less impressive and more boring. It is because we already know who is going to win looking at their equipment and how its going to play out.
I think teams that get money can buy advantages because money can buy better equipment. This means they can also get better training than other people. When they don't have a lot of money they cannot have access to these things which is a disadvantage. If all teams got the same amount of money, it would be fair.
I don't think its fair because some people may have less money and are less successful. Yesterday we did an experiment, we made paper aeroplanes, using the same materials and 1 random object. Everyone got the same result. When we altered them we still got the same result. You might not think that this makes any difference but some people got further than others on the first try. Some of the players have better working equipment which makes it faster or easier to use . This means the other players/ participants have a disadvantage
Do you think this is fair?
I think that it depends on the quality of the players themselves because if technology is too evolved it will become too overpowering and the team or player will have a very unfair advantage. But if people are already have that skill in practice and work in basic fair technology, it mainly depends on the effort put in to it.Also, digital technology can be slightly more advanced and complex.Branding also makes a difference as many companies use different materials and methods in their products or could use more testing and preparation.larger finances will be able to afford this while others could afford weaker technology. A team that has quality players could still be equal to a team with advanced technology.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage because they can buy better equipment and also a lot of different coaches.Also it is how you use it when some players use it in completely different ways.The richer teams or players could buy privet jets when the poorer teams might have to go on a coach for 10 hours and that will affect there sleep.That will affect their sleep which will affect how they play.
I think that it not fair because some richer team can spend more money then other team and if all the player had a technology it would have all the a big difference equipment in sport so I think it better to play fairly . Do you think it fair to have a advantage?
Some teams actually have more money than others because some people work more than other people so it won't be fair at the Winter games. With more money they can get better uniform, better transport, nicer hotels meaning they have a better sleep, hair gel or other accessories to please them, or much more! This gives those types of teams an advantage as the teams with less money may lose to them.
Also, the teams in a better financial situation might get better coaches and mangers and also better trainers compared to the people with less money. If these poorer teams don't perform well they will definitely lose to the richer teams.
They can because there is an advantage in dodgeball and people can buy it also in tennis,football,volleyball and other sports and it is unfair due to a lot of the times richer teams winning a lot of times and people can get very sad and mad for a long time. Like me i really wanna be the best at dodgeball but I can’t because of my classmates
I think that it is an unfair advantage that more economically developed countries can afford to give their athletes more modern technology which will enhance their performance and will mean that it will not be talent but tech which wins people the games. As well as this, countries can effectively pay for victory making the competitions corrupt and in just. I think that sports technology should be used to keep athletes safe, to make competitions fair and to include more people in sport.
I think yea because teams like Real Madrid Liverpool and other teams with that has succeed more then spurs saying that as a spurs fan but I think teams with higher standards should be able to spend on different devices
I disagree that richer teams can buy better equipment to win because it would be so unfair because poorer teams could be losing trophies and medals 🥇 and some equipment is banned because it is to over powered like some shoes 👞 are not allowed the olympics for reasons which make you run 🏃♂️ faster than you actually run
I think richer countries can buy an advantage so therefore Winter games are not fair because of the difference in technology the athletes have access to.
In the mechanical technology, richer countries would have access to better equipment and facilities that would allow them to have better things like bypassing wind resistance or to glide in the air much smoother.
Digital technology like sensors would also allow them to pinpoint inaccuracies in their technique that some countries simply wouldn’t have access to.
Though, technology can only help an athlete so much. While it would bring an advantage that does count, there could still be athletes who don’t have access to the better technology but their technique is simply unrivalled. There have been banned technology in the past that brings an advantage that no human could replicate so the technology that is present in the Winter games, while an advantage, is not a medal winner.
I think the winter game should not have a rules like this so therefore the Winter games are not because if one country is richer than the other country means they can use all equipments if they wish but the other country which is poor than the other country it cannot be used the equipments.
So l will also give a example if the 2 countrys are playing a match the one country is the richest country and the other is poor than the other country if the richest country have better equipments than the other country means the richer country will win the match .
So in my perspective l strongly tell that this is UNFAIR
I think that richer teams can purchase an advantage, which makes the Winter Games not entirely fair. Financial strength determines success long before athletes even get to the Winter Games. Richer teams can afford the best training facilities, sports science, and equipment. In winter sports, where races are decided by fractions of a second, better equipment, clothing, and technology can make a huge difference. These teams also have the budget to train in high-altitude or snow-suitable destinations, where athletes can train in conditions very similar to the Winter Games themselves.
After reading the comments of other Topical Talkers, I understand why some people think that the Winter Games are fair. They say that once the competition starts, all athletes follow the same rules, are affected by the same weather, and compete on the same track. Athletic ability, hard work, and mental toughness are still very important, and money cannot buy a medal. I partly agree with this, as athletic ability and hard work are crucial for any athlete to be successful.
But I agree more with people those who say that the playing field is already not entirely fair because of the differences in resources, recovery, and sports data. The Winter Games are meant to be a celebration of unity and excellence, but until training equality is achieved, fairness will always be a challenge.
i think it is unfair because richer teams have more of a winning chance than the other teams because games need to be fair like in football the games are made fair because they have VAR and offside but other games only have referees to decide .
poorer teams have a disadvantage to winning because richer teams have better equiptment .
Hello everyone,
I think richer teams can buy an advantage but Winter Games are not that fair because some games can have more technology. Some rich teams do not really have the chance to buy advantage because some captains or people who own the games might not allow it.😀
In the topical talk lesson that my class had yestoday we leaned about sports and if we need to have internet or not some sports you might use it but over sports you do not need to . we watched a vidoe and we needed to throw paper air plains in to the bin and who ever got in the bin of next to the bin gets 5 or 10 pints and we had to make the air plains and my group could only use clue .
No because technology should not be aloud because it's cheating and the games would be rigged but even though you think your're not that good in sports you can practice so you can make yourself better at sports and you will end up improving and you'll end up becoming the champion.
I believe if some bigger more wealthy teams can get additional assistance with technology giving them an unfair advantage in the games. I think that this means the teams that are more skills and have trained hard will have a disadvantage against the other teams because of the accessibility they have to little to no tech.
No because richer countries could buy things that make them better and poor countries could actually be good at the stuff and richer countries could be bad at them stuff but buy things that make them better like shoes that make them faster or swimming gear that make them really fast
Richer teams can afford it but if they use it sports it's still rigged and it would be cheating.
my opinion is yes because that the teams can buy a lot of tech and when they compete they use the tech for big advantages but we can also say no because that they might not know that they can buy a lot of tech.so therefore the answer is no the reason to this answer is that the richer people can have proof like if the other team won from hundredth of a second it is basically the hawk eye in tennis and VAR in football.
I think that richer teams can buy advantages, so that makes the Winter Games unfair. If countries are richer they can buy more sports technology, better training equipment and more gear. This should be considered cheating since some poor countries don't have the money to waste on sports.I feel that the organisers should not allow technology in the games as your skills are better with it. This means that you are not depending on your actual skills which isn't fair to the people who are.
I think modern sports uses too much technology and the Winter Games should ban his to make things fair. I think that the organisers should prepare the equipment for the games so that people don't have an unfair advantage.
Do you feel that technology can make sports unfair?
I think it is unfair for poorer countries and teams ,if they don’t have much money to buy all the new gadgets like extra sticky snowboards and better curling things. The richer countries could be worse than the poorer countries and just trying to win.
Hello everyone
Yes i do think richer country's have an advantage because they can buy better technology and use it to improve their athletes performance.
Hello - do you think this is fair?
I think richer teams can buy an advantage so therefore the winter games are unfair because some countries can buy better and faster gear to help them as well as better training facilities . If a team uses special technology and they win by a millisecond that's unfair to the other teams that don't have special technology that would have won if the others didn't have special technology.
This makes sense - can you think of any ways to make this fairer?
No because if the richer teams get all of the good things then it is not fair for Britain to have all of the boring things. I think it is fair to have a bit of technology and not a lot because instead of having it all to yourself even though you are really good and you have a lot of money you could give it to the poor who are not as good as you and who do not have as much money as you.
No I do not think that richer teams can buy advantages because everyone would clearly notice that its unfair, depending on the referee and VAR.
it is unfair because poorer team have less of an advantage and will lose meanwhile richer teams have the best advantage because they have better , stronger equiptment and other teams have basic weak (wooden plastic ect ) equiptment .
i agree because the richer team paid for the equiptment and make use of their money . they paid for it so it is theirs to do so with . it is only fair that they make use with T H E I R equiptment as irt is theirs and it came out of their money and or their bank acount so therefore it is fair .
i believe that the majority of my opinion is that i disagree and it is unfair for the richer teams to use better , and more expensive equiptment meanwhile the other poorer teams have to use basic cheap wooden equiptment . it is super unfair because straight off the bat you can tell /it is obvious to understand who is going to win ,it is like in tennis ,one team has an AI bat were it can detect the ball but the other team has to deal with a wooden thin flimsy bat .
IT IS SUPER UNFAIR !
Some countries can have a bigger advantage because the richer teams can spend more money to get the best technology so therefore the winter games aren't fair .
Yes because they teams who have more money can buy better things for their teams and that can be less fortunate and that can be even better for the opposing team and that meas that having more money can be really useful bu t for the other teams that can not be fair because that is relying on technology well maybe not specifically but maybe if you actually do have a lot of money you can actually buy materialistic things/artificial intelligence n to use against us so it can help but is also not fair.
I think that the winter Olympic games and paralympics are not completely fair, as money can quietly have the effect of an additional teammate. When some nations have the latest sports technology, their athletes not only work harder, but also work smarter and safer. For example, lighter skis and faster suits can cut air resistance, which can lead to an improvement of 2-3% in performing. They may seem small but races are won and lost by millisecond. A personal example of this is school exams. When two students are equally talented, but one has access to online tutorials, practicing apps, better books, it's obvious that the latter has an advantage. Similarly, the olympics. When some nations has the access to motion- tracking cameras, AI-powered trainig software, and advanced prosthetics for the paralympics, it helps athletes correct their errors faster and stay injury free. However, technology by itself is not enough to win medals. Discipline, courage and the ability to perform under pressure cannot be bought with expensive equipments. Many athletes from poorer nations still win medals through sheer hardwork and sacrifice, proving that human spirit is still more important than technology. Thus, while the olympics seek to test the best athletes in the world, the lack of equal access to technology makes the competition not entirely fair. To fully celebrate human excellence, sports must not only focus on who has the best equipment but also who has the best effort, resilience and passion.
I think the richer teams can buy an advantage because with more tech-powered features, it is more advanced than humans and more easier to commence games and stuff like that.
it is unfair because it means they get an advantage,because they will have better equiptment .
football have VAR meanwhile other teams have referees which is unfair and selfish .
In my opinion I don't think it is fair because talent and hard work should matter first, not how much money your country has. The real Olympic spirit is about doing your best, friendship, and respect. So therefore the Winter games are not fair in my opinion.
No I don't think this is fair at all, since they are given more funding its the same as given more chances or something more upgraded.
I think richer teams can buy advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are unfair because the more privileged countries can spend more money on excellent equipment and highly experienced coaches. This can buy advantage as better training facilities, high tech equipment and brilliant coaches can definitely improve skills. This is unfair as the poorer and less privileged countries are overpowered by these unfair advantages. But even then all athletes have to train for many years as everyone else does, but these small differences can be a huge change is fair gameplay and sportsmanship. Money may help, but hard work is even better.
I think it is unfair that richer teams can have more of an advantage for sports because if a team has been training for a long time working hard every day for this moment of their lives thinking they could actually win, then a richer team comes along with half their practice and money so they have a unfair advantage to win. So therefore it is not fair that teams with more money get a higher chance of winning. Money can buy props and help but it cant buy teamwork and effort
I think it depends on the sports because if you get the googles that show you how many laps you’ve done, so therefore I think richer teams can have a bigger advantage for having more money to spend on sports technology,I think the people who want to spend money on bigger and better training facilities they can but I don’t don’t think they should participate in the different races, when winning depends on miller seconds and the little things do matter a lot when racing other opponents.
I think this shouldn’t be allowed in the winter games. But I don’t think money automatically wins the race but they would probably have a higher advantage of winning.
richer people can buy advantages in all sports with money although it isnt fair for the people who cant pay it and the ones that cant pay will always lose which is never fair at all and imagine someone winning over you because they secretly brought for a advantage and if that happened to me i would be very sad and is not fun to lose everytime.